home

Police and Soldiers Arrested for Looting

By TChris, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:17:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Four soldiers on active Army duty and a reserve police officer were arrested in Greensburg, Kansas for looting a grocery store that was destroyed by a tornado. The soldiers were in uniform, but were not assigned to the disaster area. Only National Guard troops were providing disaster relief.

< Monday Open Thread | Losing Liberty >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Police and Soldiers Arrested for Looting | 27 comments (27 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Good (none / 0) (#1)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:28:34 PM EST
    I hope they get hammered in court.  

    I also hope the (none / 0) (#2)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:30:37 PM EST
    phony Red Cross workers get hammered in court also.    TChris forgot to mention those.

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:18:03 PM EST
     while this incident should not be used to smear the military as a whole, there is a difference between PHONY Red Cross workers and real soldiers.

     

    Parent

    Decon (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:25:12 PM EST
    And the difference is????

    Parent
    Uhhh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Sailor on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:42:52 PM EST
    The difference between 'fake' and 'real.'

    Looters pretending to be Red Cross and soldiers who are actual soldiers looting.

    It's the same difference between someone pretending to be a cop and looting, and an actual cop looting.

    It's the difference between a citizen firing 240 rounds into a crowd, and cops, under color of authority, firing 240 rounds into a crowd.

    Parent

    One is.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:29:20 PM EST
    abusing their authority to gain access to the disaster area?

    Parent
    that the Red Cross (none / 0) (#17)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 07, 2007 at 06:13:43 PM EST
     is not reponsible even vicariously or "reputation-wise" for the actions of people who just pretend to be RC workers, but the military is damaged by the actions of people who are actual soldiers even if they are obviously not acting under authority.

    Parent
    Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 07, 2007 at 08:25:14 PM EST
    Ah, then a bank robber who works for the federal government harms the government more than a bank robber who disguises themselves as a Tootie Frootie Ice Cream salesman?

    A looter is a looter is a looter.

    BTW - Like Wile I hope they get slammed because I think they have hurt an organization that I served in (Military) and have warm feelings for.

    Parent

    Let's simplify (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 07:02:02 AM EST
      Suppose your private electrical contracting  had several employees who while off-duty wore your company's uniform to trick building security into letting them into offices from which they stole property. You don't think the fact that the people were in fact your employees would cause you more trouble than if it was merely people who dressed up in your comany's uniforms but had no connection to your company?

      As the crime would be outside the scope of their duties, you may not be civilly liable for the property loss but, don't you thinnk it might not be bad for the business to have it known you employed crooks?

    Parent

    Exacly (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Mon May 07, 2007 at 08:56:34 PM EST
    Ah, then a bank robber who works for the federal government harms the government more than a bank robber who disguises themselves as a Tootie Frootie Ice Cream salesman?

    Like Tenet, Wolfowitz. Bush, Cheney, Duke Cunningham, Dusty Foggo, Feith, Dobson, et al.

    Parent

    More (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:59:55 PM EST

    The National Weather Service classified it an F-5, the highest category and the first since the weather service revised its scale this year in an effort to more comprehensively gauge tornadoes' damage potential, with less emphasis on wind speed. The last tornado classified as an F-5 hit the Oklahoma City area on May 3, 1999, killing 36 people.
    In Kansas, the governor said the state's response was limited by the shifting of emergency equipment, such as tents, trucks and semitrailers, to the war in Iraq.*

    ......Four soldiers from Fort Riley and a reserve police officer were arrested Sunday on suspicion of looting cigarettes and alcohol from a Greensburg store, state officials said. The soldiers weren't assigned to help in Greensburg, but police had allowed them to move freely because they were in uniform, said Sharon Watson, a spokeswoman for the Kansas adjutant general's office.

    *mention of Iraq now seems to have been edited out of the story.

    HuffPo

    Devils Advocate..... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:53:12 PM EST
    Not for nothing...isn't it better that the cigarettes get smoked than left to waste in the rain?  Assuming the store was so destroyed that the merchandise was exposed to the elements, that is.

    It seems silly to worry about some dudes picking through rubble for free drinks and smokes in the wake of so much devastation.

    You are correct (none / 0) (#6)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon May 07, 2007 at 03:56:14 PM EST
    but, if it was your stuff they were picking through, then you may say something different.

    Parent
    Problem (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:04:51 PM EST
    I doubt that anything would be resold, and would bet all of the goods were covered under insurance. The rub is that these guys were let in to a secured area, while who couldn't even come to get their own stuff.

    They were also not supposed to be their, but they wore their army suits to gain access, not to do relief or security work, but to check out the damage and do a little salvaging.

    I agree with kdog, but think that these guys abused their power, wound up staining their uniforms and the organization that they belong to.

    Parent

    That is (none / 0) (#8)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:24:34 PM EST
    why they need to be hammered in court.  

    Parent
    I see your points.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:47:06 PM EST
    using the uniform to get access not afforded to a regular joe is something I didn't consider.  That's most definitely wrong.

    But getting worked up about salvaged cigarettes and booze is still very silly. I think the store owner is more worried about his insurance company finding a loophole in his policy and shafting him/her, than what passerby are salvaging from the rubble.  At least thats what I'd be worried about.

    Parent

    Looting is looting (none / 0) (#10)
    by TheFlash on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:56:56 PM EST
    Looting is looting, period...

    From this right wing conservative and former cop, I hope they get hammered as well.

    Not (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:02:51 PM EST
    It seems that reason has no place in your Black and White world. Mandatory sentencing OK? Judges replaced by computers to remove human error?

    No thanks.

    Parent

    Black and white? No... (none / 0) (#16)
    by TheFlash on Mon May 07, 2007 at 06:11:28 PM EST
    Don't put words into my messages. If they are found guilty of violating law by a jury of their peers, they should be convicted.

    I have faith in the justice system, which does have a lot of room for "human error."

    Parent

    RE (none / 0) (#14)
    by mack on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:29:25 PM EST
    I hope they receive a fair trial and if convicted, sentenced appropriately.

    I would think that a former police officer would want the same; of course, I have been mistaken in the past.


    Parent

    Of course... (none / 0) (#18)
    by TheFlash on Mon May 07, 2007 at 06:14:49 PM EST
    Of course...

    When I said "looting is looting" it was meant that they should be arrested, charged, and be put on trial just like any other person who may have violated the law -- without regard for their professions or avocations, i.e. soldier and law enforcement officer -- no special treatment, no favors, no "professional courtesy", etc.

    Let the system work...

    Parent

    More Evidence of Declining Standards (none / 0) (#22)
    by Vietnam Vet on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:41:47 PM EST
    For quite some time now, we have been hearing stories of felons being admitted to the military, standards getting lower and lower, etc., etc. This episode simply supports those points. And, guess what: all of this is attributable to the fiasco in Iraq! We experienced the same type situation when Vietnam was in full swing. Fragging of officers, high levels of drug use, insubordination, awols, desertions, and a general breakdown in our military services, especially the army. We need to end this unwinable war!

    Bring back the draft? (none / 0) (#23)
    by TheFlash on Tue May 08, 2007 at 02:01:41 PM EST
    Sounds like Charlie Rangel and Henry Hyde had the right idea to bring back the draft...right? ;-)

    (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/)

    Parent

    That's quite a leap (none / 0) (#24)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 02:33:37 PM EST
      What evidence do you have that these particular soldiers have criminal records or other documented instances of misbehavior that would have prevented them from enlisting if there were higher standards?

    Parent
    Comment (none / 0) (#25)
    by Vietnam Vet on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:18:02 AM EST
    "What evidence do you have that these particular soldiers have criminal records or other documented instances of misbehavior that would have prevented them from enlisting if there were higher standards?" By: Deconstructionist

    My comment did not even address standards being lowered or raised. But, since you brought up the subject, the standards are there: they are just being waived.

    My reference was to the behavior of these soldiers. It makes little difference if they had PAST records or not. The evidence seems to support that their behavior NOW supports my comments.

    Parent

    No, it doesn't-- (none / 0) (#27)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:28:19 AM EST
     -- not even slightly. Standards for enlistment have no relevance to this matter whatsoever unless you have some evidence that the establishment and enforcement of  standards would have meant these particular men would not be in the service unless the standards were too low or not enforced.

      Ssince STANDARDS can only be based on PAST records and not on crystal ball insights into what people without records will do in the future, your post was a rather silly and transparent attempt to exploit an issue to make a point when the issue had nothing to do with your point.

    Parent

    Comment (none / 0) (#26)
    by Vietnam Vet on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:26:18 AM EST
    "What evidence do you have that these particular soldiers have criminal records or other documented instances of misbehavior that would have prevented them from enlisting if there were higher standards?" By: Deconstructionist

    My comment did not even address standards being lowered or raised per se as applied to these particular soldiers. My reference was to the behavior of these soldiers and how it just might tie in to what appears to be a general degredation of our military services. It makes little difference if they had PAST records or not. The evidence seems to support that their behavior NOW supports my comments. This point has been documented numerous times over the past year or so by those more expert than I on the subject.

    Parent

    Police and Soldiers Arrested for Looting | 27 comments (27 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment